TIMOTHY DAY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court's departure sentences must be reversed because no contemporaneous written reasons were provided, and the Pope decision applies retroactively.
Timothy Day was convicted of racketeering and robbery and received departure sentences after a resentencing hearing. The trial court did not provide w…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Written Reasons For Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
Timothy Day, who was convicted of racketeering and sixteen counts of robbery, appeals guidelines departure sentences of twelve consecutive life terms and two consecutive thirty year terms. We reverse.
This is Day’s second appeal to this court in this matter. On February 1, 1989, this court issued a mandate requiring a resentencing hearing on the ground that Day acting by himself did not constitute an “enterprise” as defined by section 895.02(3), Florida Statutes (1985).1 Upon remand, the trial court imposed the sentences which Day now appeals; those sentences depart from the recommended guidelines range of twenty-two to twenty-seven years’ imprisonment.
At the time of resentencing, the trial court provided no contemporaneous written reasons for departure. In Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990), our supreme court, relying upon its earlier decisions in State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985), receded from on other grounds, Wilkerson v. State, 513 So. 2d 664 (Fla.1987), and Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1987), held that where the trial court fails to provide written reasons for departure, the appellate court must remand for resentencing within the guidelines. Since Day’s sen-fences were imposed before Pope, the state argues that Pope should only be applied prospectively. We disagree and join with the Third District Court which has concluded that Pope should apply retroactively. See Fonseca v. State, 570 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
Reversed and remanded with directions to impose a guidelines sentence.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur. . See Day v. State, 541 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), review denied, 545 So. 2d 869 (Fla.1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1985)
- Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1990)
- Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1987)
- Wilkerson v. State, 513 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1987)
- D.R. v. State, 541 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- DAY v. State, 541 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Fonseca v. State, 570 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)